TANNAIM AND AMORAIM

By : Wilhelm Bacher Jacob Zallel Lauterbach Joseph Jacobs Louis Ginzberg

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
The Name.
First Generation (10-80 C.E.):
Second Generation (80-120):
Third Generation (120-140):
Fourth Generation:
Fifth Generation (165-200):
Sixth Generation (200-220):


The Name.

The name "tanna" is derived from the Aramaic "teni" or "tena" (="to teach"), and designates in general a teacher of the oral law, and in particular one of the sages of the Mishnah, those teachers of the oral law whose teachings are contained in the Mishnah and in the Baraita. The term was first used in the Gemara to indicate a teacher mentioned in the Mishnah or in a baraita, in contradistinction to the later authorities, the Amoraim. Not all the teachers of the oral law who are mentioned in the Mishnah are called tannaim, however, but only those belonging to the period BEGINNING WITH THE DISCIPLES OF SHAMMAI AND HILEL AND ENDING WITH THE CONTEMPORARIES OF JUDAH HE-NASI. The authorities preceding that period are called "ze?enim ha-rishonim" (the former elders). In the time of the Amoraim the name "tanna" was given also to one well versed in the Mishnah and the other tannaitic traditions.

The period of the Tannaim, which lasted about 210 years (10-220 C.E.), is generally divided by Jewish scholars into five or six sections or generations, the purpose of such division being to show which teachers developed their principal activity contemporaneously. Some of the tannaim, however, were active in more than one generation. The following is an enumeration of the six generations and of the more prominent tannaim respectively belonging to them:

First Generation (10-80 C.E.):

Principal tannaim: the Shammaites (Bet Shammai) and the Hillelites (Bet Hillel), 'A?abya b. Mahalaleel, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, ?anina, chief of the priests ("segan ha-kohanim"), Simeon b. Gamaliel, and JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI.

The name Azai is a contracted form of Azariah; ZACCAI for ZECHARIAH...YOHAI for JOHANNAN...Illia perhaps for Eleazar, NITTAI for NATHANJAH...Pirke Aboth, The Ethics of the Talmud: sayings of the Fathers, by R. Travers Herford.

Second Generation (80-120):

Principal tannaim: Rabban Gamaliel II. (of Jabneh), Zadok, Dosa b. Harkinas, Eliezer b. Jacob, ELIEZER B. HYRCANUS, Joshua b. Hananiah, Eleazar b. Azariah, Judah b. Bathyra.

Third Generation (120-140):

Principal tannaim: ?arfon, Ishmael, Akiba, Johanan b. Nuri, Jose ha-Gelili, Simeon b. Nanos, Judah b. Baba, and Johanan b. Baro?a. Several of these flourished in the preceding period.

Fourth Generation:

This generation extended from the death of Akiba (c. 140) to that of the patriarch Simeon b. Gamaliel (c. 165). The teachers belonging to this generation were: Meïr, Judah b. Ilai, Jose b. ?alafta, SIMEON B. YOHAI, Eleazar b. Shammua, Johanan ha-Sandalar, Eleazar b. Jacob, Nehemiah, Joshua b. ?ar?a, and the above-mentioned Simeon b. Gamaliel.

Fifth Generation (165-200):

Principal tannaim: Nathan ha-Babli, Symmachus, Judah ha-Nasi I., Jose b. Judah, Eleazar b. Simeon, Simeon b. Eleazar.

Sixth Generation (200-220):

To this generation belong the contemporaries and disciples of Judah ha-Nasi. They are mentioned in the Tosefta and the Baraita but not in the Mishnah. Their names are: Polemo, Issi b. Judah, Eleazar b. Jose, Ishmael b. Jose, Judah b. La?ish, ?iyya, A?a, Abba (Arika). These teachers are termed "semi-tannaim"; and therefore some scholars count only five generations of tannaim. Christian scholars, moreover, count only four generations, reckoning the second and third as one (Strack, "Einleitung in den Talmud," pp. 77 et seq.).

The following list (not included here) enumerates all the ze?enim harishonim, tannaim, and amoraim mentioned in the Talmudic-Midrashic literature, those who are well known and frequently mentioned as well as those whose names occur once only in the Mishnah and Tosefta or in the Talmud and Midrash. To this pretannaitic period belong the so-called "pairs" ("zugot") of teachers: SIMEON THE JUST and Antigonus of Soko; Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan; Joshua ben Pera?yah and Nittai of Arbela; Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben She?a?; Shemaiah and Abtalion; Hillel and Shammai.

Our contention here is that the merkabah doctrines of the Essenes--those that gave birth to Christianity--were secretly carried over to the Pharisees (to those on the Lunar side of the oracles) in the name of John the son of Zachariah ( John the Baptist the original Johanan b. Zakkai), and that these teachings then forth among the Tannaim not merely under that name but by some anonymous individual (or individuals) who adopted the name to themself. And that they were carried there by Simon bar Jonah (and others such as Eliezer b. Hyrcanus), whose ministry was directly to the Circumcision, and who was also the original Simeon bar Yochai (the disciple of Yochanan). Again, the name passed into the Judaic stream of thought and was either taken up by another (a later Schimon b. Yochai), or taken out of its historic context by others later on, and inserted in the list of tannaim after Akiba, and that to lend further credence to the teachings of Akiba which were in question by others. Please keep in mind, Akiba said that Bar Kochba was the messiah. The words attributed to Simeon b. Yochai in the Zohar centuries later could only have been uttered by one who knew the mystery.

And we hold that the excommunicated Elisha ben Abuyah is none other than Christianity's Paul, who followed John the Baptist--the spirit of Elijah in his time--in the historical framework of the hidden oracles:

And Elijah took Twelve stones according to the number of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the Word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name...(1 Kings 18:31; Matthew 11:7-15).

And when the sons of the prophets...saw hiim, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him...(2 Kings 2:15).

But I tell you the truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land.

And many lepers were in Israel in the days if Eliseus (Elisha) the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, saving Namaan the Syrian.

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things were full of wrath...(Luke 4:25-28).

JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI

By : Solomon Schechter Wilhelm Bacher

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Activity Before Destruction of Temple.
Residence in Galilee.
After the Destruction.
His Teaching.
His Exegesis.
The ?omer.
Esoteric Doctrines.

The most important tanna in the last decade of the Second Temple, and, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the founder and first president of the academy at Jabneh. According to the theory formulated in the Mishnah (Ab. ii. 8), that traditions were handed down through an unbroken chain of scholars, Johanan, in receiving the teachings of Hillel and Shammai, formed the last link in that chain. But it is rather as a pupil of Hillel than of Shammai that he is known (Suk. 28a). Before his death Hillel is said to have prophetically designated Johanan, his youngest pupil, as "the father of wisdom" and "the father of coming generations" (Yer. Ned. v., end, 39b). Like that of Hillel, Johanan's life was divided into periods of forty years each. In the first of these he followed a mercantile pursuit; in the second he studied; and in the third he taught (R. H. 30b). Another version has it (Sifre, Deut. 357) that in the last forty years of his life he was a leader of Israel. If the last statement be accepted as approximately correct, and it is assumed that Johanan lived at the latest one decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, his public activity as the recognized leader of the pharisaic scribes must have begun between the years 30 and 40 of the common era. (Right at the time as these doctrines were coming over and being committed in secret measure to the Pharisees)

Activity Before Destruction of Temple.

Some data have been preserved concerning Johanan's public activity in Jerusalem before the destruction of the Temple. Together with Simon b. Gamaliel I. he sent orders to the different districts of Palestine concerning the delivery of the tithe (statement of his pupil Joshua b. Netunya in the Mekilta of Simeon b. Yochai; Midr. ha-Gadol to Deut. xxvi. 13). He refuted the objections of the Sadducees to the Pharisees (Yad. iv. 5), and opposed the halakah of the Sadducees (Men. 65a; B. B. 115b). He prevented a Sadducean high priest from following the Sadducean regulations at the burning of the red heifer (Tosef., Parah, iii. 8; comp. Parah iii. 7, 8). It was Johanan's activity as a teacher in Jerusalem which was especially extolled by tradition. HIS SCHOOL WAS CALLED THE "GREAT HOUSE," after the expression in II Kings xxv. 9 (Yer. Meg. 73d). It was the scene of many incidents THAT FORMED THE SUBJECTS OF ANECDOTE AND LEGEND (Lam. R. i. 12, passim; Gen. R. iv.). The oft-repeated story concerning JOHANNAN'S MOST IMPORTANT PUPIL, ELIEZER B. HYRCANUS, shows Johanan's bet ha-midrash (academy) as the scene of a pathetic meeting between son and father (Tan., ed. Buber, to Gen. xiv. 1). An old tradition (Pes. 26a) relates that Johanan sat in the shadow of the Temple and lectured the whole day; but that of course was not the permanent place for his teaching. The statements regarding five of his pupils, his verdict concerning them, and the question he put to them as to the best road for a person to pursue through life (Ab. ii. 8) are reminiscences of the period before the destruction.

Residence IN GALILEE.

Johanan's residence in 'Arab, a place in Galilee, which was perhaps his home, belongs to this period. Two questions of a legal nature (regarding the observance of the Sabbath) which he answered while there (Shab. xvi. 7, xxii. 3) gave rise to the statement that he lived there for eighteen years (probably a round number) and that he was moved by the religious indifference of the inhabitants to exclaim: "O Galilee, Galilee, thou hatest the Torah; HENCE WILT THOU FALL INTO THE HANDS OF ROBBERS!" Another prophetical exclamation of a similar nature is ascribed to Johanan. THE GATES OF THE TEMPLE HAD OMINOUSLY OPENED OF THEMSELVES, whereupon he apostrophized the sanctuary: "O Temple, Temple, why dost thou frighten thyself? I KNOW OF THEE THAT THOU SHALT BE DESTROYED... ZECHARIAH the son of Iddo [Zech. xi. 1] HAS ALREADY PROPHESIED CONCERNING THEE: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars'" (Yoma 39b; comp. Ab. R. N., Recension B, vii., ed. Schechter, p. 21).

After the Destruction.

Johanan's part in the last struggle of Jerusalem against Rome has been immortalized in the legends concerning the destruction of that city, which, however, have a historical kernel (Gi?. 56b; Lam. R. i. 5; Ab. R. N. iv.). He counseled peace; and when the strife of parties in the besieged city became unbearable he had himself carried to the Roman camp in a coffin. Like Josephus, Johanan prophesied imperial honors for the general Vespasian, quoting the words of the prophet Isaiah: "LEBANON [that is, the sanctuary] SHALL FALL BY A MIGHTY ONE" (Isa.x. 34). He sought and obtained permission to settle in Jabneh (Jamnia) and to exercise his profession of teacher there. In Jabneh, surrounded by his pupils, Johanan received the terrible news that the Temple was burned to ashes. They tore their garments, wept, and made lamentation as for the dead (Ab. R. N. iv.). But the aged master in the catastrophe which had befallen the Jewish people kept his vigor unimpaired. He converted the school at Jabneh into a center for Judaism in Palestine. The college, of which he was president, exercised the functions of the great law court (Sanhedrin) of Jerusalem, and by this institution of an authorized board the continuity of spiritual leadership was maintained uninterrupted. Johanan saw to it that Jabneh took the place of Jerusalem as the Jewish religious center. He ordained that certain privileges peculiar to Jerusalem and the sanctuary should be transferred to Jabneh (R. H. iv. 1, 3). Other regulations of his dealt with the determination of the exact time when the new month begins—a matter then very important—and with the acceptance of the testimony on which such determination is based (ib. iv. 41; Baraita, R. H. 21b). His order that, as had been customary in the Temple, the trumpets should sound in Jabneh on New-Year's Day even when it fell on the Sabbath, was opposed, but unsuccessfully, by some of the members of the council (Baraita, R. H. 29b).

It is not known how long Johanan remained at the head of the bet ha-midrash and of the legal council. It may be accepted as certain that Johanan was succeeded by Gamaliel II. while the former was still living, inasmuch as he did not die in Jabneh; for it is related (Eccl. R. vii. 7; comp. Ab. R. N. xiv.) that his pupils went to Jabneh after his death. And furthermore, since a place, Berur ?ayil, is mentioned as the seat of a legal council over which Johanan presided (Sanh. 32b; Sifre, Deut. 144), and at another time it is related that Joshua b. Hananiah visited his teacher in Berur ?ayil (Tosef., Ma'aser al-Rishon, i. 1), it may be concluded that Johanan spent the last years of his life and died at this place, which was near Jabneh (concerning the name comp. Krauss's conjecture in Berliner's "Magazin," xx. 119; Derenbourg, in "Monatsschrift," xxxvii. 304). His pupils were present at his death. The solemn conversation between the dying master and his disciples (Ber. 28b) begins with a question from the latter: "LIGHT OF ISRAEL, PILLAR OF THE SANCTUARY, STRONG HAMMER, why dost thou weep?" These remarkable epithets characterize the work of Johanan and his importance for his period. The blessing which just before his death he pronounced upon his pupils at their desire consisted of the prayer: "May it be God's will that the fear of heaven be as strong in you as the fear of flesh and blood" (ib.). His last words were: "Put the vessels out of the house, that they may not become unclean, AND PREPARE A THRONE FOR HEZEKIAH, THE KING OF JUDAH, WHO IS COMING" (ib.). By this puzzling reference to Hezekiah, Johanan plainly meant the coming of the Messiah, of which he was thinking in his last moments. A son of Johanan died before him (Ab. R. N. xiv., end). In one ànecdote (B. B. 10b) his sister's sons are mentioned. One of these nephews, Ben Ba?ia?, is named as one of the Zealot leaders (Lam. R. to i. 4; Jew. Encyc. ii. 673).

His Teaching.

Johanan ben Zakkai's motto was, "If thou hast learned much of the Torah, do not take credit for it; for this was the purpose of thy creation" (Ab. ii. 8). He found his real calling in the study of the Law. The following description of him was handed down by tradition (Suk. 28a): "He never spoke an idle word; he did not go four yards without reflecting on the Torah and without the phylacteries; no one ever preceded him in entering the bet ha-midrash; he never slept in the bet ha-midrash, and was always the last to leave it; no one ever found him engaged in anything but study." His knowledge was spoken of as though it included the whole of Jewish learning (Ab. R. N. xiv., end; Suk. 28a; B. B. 134a; Masseket Soferim xvi. 8). He advises a priestly family in Jerusalem, the members of which died young, to occupy itself with the study of the Torah so as to ward off the curse of dying in the prime of life, which is laid upon the descendants of Eli (from whom they may have descended) in I Sam. ii. 23 (R. H. 18a). He, however, warned against a one-sided devotion to study, as in his verdict concerning scholars and those free of sin: "Whoever possesses both these characteristics at the same time is like an artist who has his tools in his hands" (Ab. R. N. xxii.). (see image) Traditional Tomb of Johanan ben Zakkai, near Tiberias, with the Grave of Maimonides to the Right.(From a photograph by Dr. W. Popper.)

His Exegesis.

In the halakic tradition JOHANAN IS BUT SELDOM REFERRED TO AS AN ORIGINATOR OF MAXIMS. His halakah is doubtless to be found in that of Hillel's school and in the sayings of his pupils, especially of Eliezer and Joshua. The haggadic tradition, on the other hand, connects numerous and varied sayings with his name. Mention may first be made of conversations between him and his pupils, or between him and unbelievers who were versed in the Bible, in which questions of textual interpretation were discussed. At one time he asked his pupils what the words in Prov. xiv. 34 meant (Pesi?., ed. Buber, 12b; comp. B. B. 10b, where the accounts of two conversations have been confused). He himself interpreted them as follows: "Benevolence [HESED] on the part of a nation has the atoning power of a sin-offering" (B. B. l.c.). In the same sense he interpreted the words of the prophet (Hosea vi. 6), "I desired mercy [HESED], and not sacrifice," with which he comforted his pupils for the destruction of the Temple and the discontinuance of the sacrifice of atonement (Ab. R. N. iv.). He answered several questions of a polemical tendency put by a Roman commander, who can not be identified owing to the different ways in which his name is written. These questions referred to the contradiction between the figures in Num. iii. 22, 28, 34 and the total sum in verse 39 of the same chapter (Bek. 5b), between Ex. xxxviii. 26 and 27 (ib.), and between Gen. i. 20 and ii. 19 (?ul. 27b); also to the legal regulation in Ex. xxi. 29 (Yer. Sanh. 19b), and to the law concerning the red heifer (Pesi?. 40a). In connection with the last-mentioned question Johanan refers the Gentile to a Gentile analogy: Just as the evil spirit is driven out of a person possessed through burning certain roots and by other means, so the process of purification drives out the "unclean spirit" (Zech. xiii. 2). To his pupils, however, who were not satisfied with this answer, he said: "By your lives, death does not make impure, nor water clean; but it [the law concerning the red heifer] is a decree of the All Holy, whose reasons we must not question" (comp. Lazarus, "Die Ethik des Judenthums," i. 189, 246).

The omer.

A special group of Johanan's haggadic text interpretations is given the name "omer," which term is related to the designation "doreshe ?amurot," applied to the ancient expositors of the Bible. In this group the interpretations are symbolic, SEEKING TO PENETRATE INTO THE SPIRIT OF THE BIBLE TEXT.

One source (Tosef., B. ? vii. 3 et seq.) puts five such explanations of Johanan together. They answer the following questions: "Why is the ear of a Hebrew slave bored who voluntarily refuses to be made free?" (Ex. xxi. 6; comp. ?id. 22b). "Why is iron excluded from the building material of the altar?" (Ex. xx. 25; Deut, xxvii. 5; comp. Mek., Yitro, Ba?odesh, 11). "What does the remarkable word 'asher' in Lev. iv. 22 mean?" (comp. Hor. 10b). "WHY WAS ISRAEL EXILED SPECIALLY TO BABYLON?" (comp. Pes. 87b). "Why were only the first tables of the testimony, and not the second, considered to be the work of God?" (Ex. xxxii. 16).

Besides the explanations to these questions, Johanan gave others of a similar character. He explained why a thief is punished more severely than a robber (B. ?. 79b), and by explaining the Biblical numbers symbolically he answered the question: "Why does the Scripture (Ex. xxii. 1] ordain fivefold restitution for an ox and only fourfold for a sheep?" (ib.). The forty days of rain during the Flood which destroyed sinful man (Gen. vii. 12) corresponded, he said, to the forty days of the formation of the human embryo (Gen. R. xxxii.). The ten gerah (= a half-shekel) of the atonement money (Ex. xxx. 13) corresponded to the Ten Commandments, for the transgression for which atonement is to be made (Pesi?. 19b).

Among other things Johanan explained the following:

The exhortation to those who are freed from military service to return home (Deut. xx. 5-7):—this, he said, was given in order that the cities of Israel might not become depopulated in times of war (Sifre, Deut. 192). The passage Gen. ii. 19:—he does not find that the account of the creation of the animals is here repeated but that their subjection to man is described (Gen. R. xvii). The words "And the eyes of them both were opened" (Gen. iii. 7):—this means that God opened their eyes to the evil they had brought upon future generations (Gen. R. xix.). Abraham's vision of the future (Gen. xv. 18):—this showed Abraham the present world only, not the future one (Gen. R. xliv.).

Johanan's views on piety (comp. his motto given above) correspond to his teaching that Job's piety was not based on the love of God, but on the fear of Him (Job. i. 1; So?ah v. 5, reported by Joshua b. Hananiah). He explains the exhortation in Eccl. ix. 8 allegorically: "White garments and costly oils are not meant here," he says (Eccl. R. ix. 6), "for the Gentile peoples have these in plenty: it is rather an exhortation to fulfil the Law, to do good deeds, and to study the Scriptures."

Esoteric Doctrines.

In a tradition concerning the knowledge of esoteric doctrines ("Ma'aseh Bereshit " and "Ma'aseh Merkabah"), related by Jose b. Judah, a tanna of the second half of the second century, IT IS SAID THAT JOSHUA B. HANANIAH, THE PUPIL OF JOHANAN, UNDER THE EYES OF HIS MASTER OCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH ESOTERIC DOCTRINES AND THAT AKIBA LEARNED THEM FROM HIM (?ag. 14b). According to another tradition (ib.), it was Eleazar b. 'Arak with whom Johanan studied the mystic doctrines. A remarkable saying of Johanan's has been preserved, which is in accord with his study of mystic doctrines (?ag. 13a; comp. Pes. 94b). In this saying man is advised to bring the infinity of God, the Creator of the world, nearer to his own conception by imagining the space of the cosmos extended to unthinkable distances.

In conclusion may be mentioned the historical meaning which Johanan, on a certain sad occurrence, gave to a verse of the Song of Solomon (Yitro, Ba?odesh, 1). In Ma'on, a town of southern Judea, Johanan saw, probably not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, a young Jewess picking out grains of barley from the ordure of an Arab's horse, in order to still her hunger. Johanan said to his pupils who were with him: "My whole life long I have tried to understand that sentence in the Song of Solomon [i. 8]: 'If thou know not, O thou fairest among women,' etc. Now for the first time I catch its meaning: 'You did not wish'—so goes the word reproving Israel—'to submit to God; hence you are made subject to foreign peoples. You did not wish to pay God a half-shekel for each person; now you pay 15 shekels to the government of your enemies. You did not wish to repair the roads and streets for the holiday pilgrims; you must now repair the road-houses and watch-towers for your oppressors. And in you is fulfilled the prophecy [Deut. xviii. 47-48, R. V.]: Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things, therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies, which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things.'"

Johanan felt the fall of his people more deeply than any one else, but—and in this lies his historical importance—HE DID MORE THAN ANY ONE ELSE TO PREPARE THE WAY FOR ISRAEL TO RISE AGAIN.

Bibliography: Frankel, Mebo;
Grätz, Gesch. iii.;
Weiss, Dor, i.,
Brüll, Einleitung;
Derenbourg, Histoire;
Bacher, Ag. Pal.Tannaiten, 2d ed., i. 22-42;
W. Landau, in Monatsschrift. i. 163;
Joseph Spitz, R. Jochanan b. Zakkai, 1883;
Schlatter, Jochanan b. Zakkai, der Zeitgenosse der Apostel, 1899.S. S. W. B.

MERKABAH

By : Kaufmann Kohler

The Heavenly Throne; hence "Ma'aseh Merkabah," the lore concerning the heavenly Throne-Chariot, with especial reference to Ezek. i. and x. The conception of Yhwh riding upon cherubim, or fiery cloud-birds, upon the heavens or the clouds, is certainly genuinely Hebrew (see Ps. xviii. 11 [A. V. 10]; Deut. xxxiii. 26; Ps. lxviii. 5 [A. V. 4]; Isa. xix. 1); hence His "war-chariot" (Hab. iii. 8 and Isa. lxvi. 15, Hebr.) and the name "chariot" for the ark with the cherubim (I Chron. xxviii. 18). Just as the Assyrian sunchariot with its horses is employed in the legend of the ride of Elijah to heaven (II Kings ii. 11; comp. Enoch lxx. 2, lxxii. 5, lxxiii. 2), so did the prophet Ezekiel in his vision, probably suggested by Babylonian sculpture, see Yhwh riding on the Throne-Chariotwhen leaving the doomed Temple at Jerusalem (see Müller, "Ezechielstudien," 1895, pp. 8-11; Bertholet, "Das Buch Hezekiel," 1897, p. 12). To a later age Ezekiel's picture became a sacred mystery known by the term "Merkabah" as early as the time of Ben Sira (Ecclus. xlix. 8). The ancient Mishnah lays down the rule: "The Ma'aseh Merkabah should not be taught to any one except he be wise and able to deduce knowledge through wisdom ('gnosis') of his own" (?ag. ii. 1). Job beheld the throne of God, and his daughters sang the doxology of the Ma'aseh Merkabah (according to the Testament of Job, ed. Kohler, vii. 39, xi. 25; see Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 282, 288). Quite characteristic is the story given in Tosef., ?ag. ii. 1; ?ag. 14b; Yer. ?ag. ii. 77a:(p?e?µat????; see Joël, "Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte," 1880, pp. 133-135).

"R. Eleazar ben 'Arak was riding on a mule behind R. Johanan b. Zakkai, when he asked for the privilege of being initiated into the secrets of the Merkabah. The great master demanded proof of his initiation into the gnosis, and when Eleazar began to tell what he had learned thereof, R. Johanan immediately descended from the mule and sat upon the rock. 'Why, O master, dost thou descend from the mule?' asked the disciple. 'Can I remain mounted upon the mule when the telling of the secrets of the Merkabah causes the Shekinah to dwell with us and the angels to accompany us?' was the answer. Eleazar continued, and, behold, fire descended from heaven and lit up the trees of the field, causing them to sing anthems, and an angel cried out, 'TRULY THESE ARE SECRETS OF THE MERKABAH' Whereupon R. Johanan kissed Eleazar upon the forehead, saying, 'Blessed be thou, O father Abraham, that hast a descendant like Eleazar b. 'Arak!' Subsequently two other disciples of R. Johanan b. Zakkai walking together said to each other: 'Let us also talk together about the Ma'aseh Merkabah'; and no sooner did R. Joshua begin speaking THAN A RAINBOW-LIKE APPEARANCE [Ezek. i. 28] WAS SEEN UPON THE THICK CLOUDS WHICH COVERED THE SKY, and angels came to listen as men do to hear wedding-music. On hearing the things related by R. Jose, R. Johanan b. Zakkai blessed his disciples and said: 'Blessed the eyes that beheld these things! Indeed I saw myself in a dream together with you, seated like the select ones [comp. Ex. xxiv. 11] upon Mount Sinai; and I heard a heavenly voice saying: "Enter the banquet-hall and take your seats with your disciples and disciples' disciples, among the elect, the highest ('third') class"'"


SIMEON BEN YOCHAI

By : Kaufmann Kohler M. Seligsohn


Pupil of Akiba.

Tanna of the second century; supposed author of the Zohar; born in Galilee; died, according to tradition, at Meron, on the 18th of Iyyar (Lag be-'Omer). In the Baraita, Midrash, and Gemara his name occurs either as Simeon or as Simeon ben Yohai, but in the Mishnah, with the exception of ?ag. i. 7, he is always quoted as R. Simeon. He was one of the principal pupils of Akiba, under whom he studied thirteen years at Bene-Bera? (Lev. R. xxi. 7 et al.). It would seem, from Ber. 28a, that Simeon had previously studied at Jabneh, under Gamaliel II. and Joshua b. Hananiah, and that he was the cause of the quarrel that broke out between these two chiefs. But considering that about forty-five years later, when Akiba was thrown into prison, Simeon's father was still alive (see below), and that Simeon insisted upon Akiba's teaching him even in prison, Frankel ("Darke ha-Mishnah," p. 168) thinks Ber. 28a is spurious. Simeon's acuteness was tested and recognized by Akiba when he first came to him; of all his pupils Akiba ordained only Meïr and Simeon. Conscious of his own merit, Simeon felt hurt at being ranked after Meïr, and Akiba was compelled to soothe him with soft words (Yer. Ter. 46b; Yer. Sanh. i. 19a). During Akiba's lifetime Simeon was found occasionally at Sidon, where he seems to have shown great independence in his halakic decisions.

The following incident of Simeon's stay at Sidon, illustrating both his wit and his piety, may be mentioned: A man and his wife, who, though they had been married ten years, had no children, appeared before Simeon at Sidon to secure a divorce. Observing that they loved each other, and not being able to refuse a request which was in agreement with rabbinical law, Simeon told them that as their wedding was marked by a feast they should mark their separation in the same way. The result was that both changed their minds, and, owing to Simeon's prayer, God granted them a child (Pesi?. xxii. 147a; Cant. R. i. 4). Simeon often returned to Akiba, and once he conveyed a message to him from his fellow pupil ?anina ben ?akinai (Niddah 52b; Tosef., Niddah, vi. 6).

Simeon's love for his great teacher was profound. When Akiba was thrown into prison by Hadrian, Simeon, probably through the influence of his father, who was in favor at the court of Rome, found a way to enter the prison. He still insisted upon Akiba's teaching him, and when the latter refused, Simeon jestingly threatened to tell his father, Yo?ai, who would cause Akiba to be punished more severely(Pes. 112a). After Akiba's death Simeon was again ordained, with four other pupils of Akiba's, by Judah b. Baba (Sanh. 14a).

Anti-Roman Feeling.

The persecution of the Jews under Hadrian inspired Simeon with a different opinion of the Romans than that held by his father. On more than one occasion Simeon manifested his anti-Roman feeling. When, at a meeting between Simeon and his former fellow pupils at Usha, probably about a year and a half after Akiba's death (c. 126), Judah ben Ila'i spoke in praise of the Roman government, Simeon replied that the institutions which seemed so praiseworthy to Judah were for the benefit of the Romans only, to facilitate the carrying out of their wicked designs. Simeon's words were carried by Judah b. Gerim, one of his own pupils, to the Roman governor, who sentenced Simeon to death (according to Grätz, this governor was Varus, who ruled under Antoninus Pius, and the event took place about 161). Simeon was compelled to seek refuge in a cavern, where he remained thirteen years, till the emperor, possibly Hadrian, died (Yer. Sheb. ix. 38d; Shab. 33b; Pesi?. 88b; Gen. R. lxxix. 6; Eccl. R. x. 8; Esth. R. i. 9). Two different accounts of Simeon's stay in the cavern and of his movements after leaving it are given in Shabbat (l.c.) and in the five other sources just mentioned. The latter, of which Yer. Sheb. ix. 38d seems to be the most authentic, relate, with some variations, that Simeon, accompanied by his son Eleazar (in Yer. Sheb. Simeon alone), hid himself in a cavern near Gadara, where they stayed thirteen years, living on dates and the fruit of the carob-tree, their whole bodies thus becoming covered with eruptions. One day, seeing that a bird had repeatedly escaped the net set for it by a hunter, Simeon and his son were encouraged to leave the cavern, taking the escape of the bird as an omen that God would not forsake them. When outside the cavern, they heard a "bat kol" say, "Ye are [singular in Yer. Sheb.] free"; they accordingly went their way. Simeon then bathed in the warm springs of Tiberias, which rid him of the disease contracted in the cavern, and he showed his gratitude to the town in the following manner:

His Miracles.

Tiberias had been built by Herod Antipas on a site where there were many tombs (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 2, § 3), the exact locations of which had been lost. The town therefore had been regarded as unclean. Resolving to remove the cause of the uncleanness, Simeon planted lupines in all suspected places; wherever they did not take root he knew that a tomb was underneath. The bodies were then exhumed and removed, and the town pronounced clean. To annoy and discredit Simeon, a certain Samaritan secretly replaced one of the bodies. But Simeon learned through the power of the Holy Spirit what the Samaritan had done, and said, "Let what is above go down, and what is below come up." The Samaritan was entombed; and a schoolmaster of Magdala (but comp. Buber, note 180, to Pesi?. x. 90a), who mocked Simeon for his declaration, was turned into a heap of bones.

According to the version, in Shab. l.c., Simeon and Eleazar hid in a cavern, whereupon a carob-tree and a spring miraculously appeared there. In order to spare their garments they sat naked in the sand, in consequence of which their skin became covered with scabs. At the end of twelve years the prophet Elijah announced to them the death of the emperor, and the consequent annulment of the sentence of death against them. When they came forth Simeon observed people occupied with agricultural pursuits to the neglect of the Torah, and, being angered thereby, smote them by his glances. A bat kol then ordered him to return to the cavern, where he and Eleazar remained twelve months longer, at the end of which time they were ordered by a bat ?ol to come forth. When they did so, Simeon was met by his son-in-law Phinehas b. Jair (comp., however, Zacuto, "Yu?asin," ed. Filipowski, p. 46), who wept at seeing him in such a miserable state. But Simeon told him that he ought to rejoice, for during the thirteen years' stay in the cavern his knowledge of the Torah had been much increased. Simeon then, in gratitude for the miracle that had been wrought for him, undertook the purification of Tiberias. He threw some lupines into the ground, whereupon the bodies came to the surface at various places, which were then marked as tombs. Not only was the man who mocked at Simeon's announcement of the purification of Tiberias turned into a heap of bones, but also Simeon's pupil and delator, Judah b. Gerim.

School at Tekoa.

It appears that Simeon settled afterward at Meron, the valley in front of which place was filled, at Simeon's command, with gold dinars (Tan., Pe?ude, 7; Ex. R. lii. 3; comp. Yer. Ber. ix. 13d; Pesi?. x. 87b; Gen. R. xxxv. 2). On the other hand, it is said that Simeon established a flourishing school at Tekoa, among the pupils of which was Judah I. (Tosef., 'Er. viii. [v.] 6; Shab. 147b). It has been shown by Grätz that this Tekoa evidently was in Galilee, and hence must not be identified with the Biblical Tekoa, which was in the territory of Judah (II Chron. xi. 6). Bacher ("Ag. Tan." ii. 76) endeavors to show that Tekoa and Meron were one and the same place.

As the last important event in Simeon's life it is recorded that, accompanied by Eleazar b. Jose, he was sent to Rome with a petition to the emperor for the abolition of the decree against the three main observances of the Jewish religion, and that his mission was successful (Me'i. 17b). The reason Simeon was chosen for this mission is stated (ib.) to have been that he was known as a man in whose favor miracles often were wrought. At Rome, too, Simeon's success was due to a miracle, for while on the way he was met by the demon Ben Temalion, who offered his assistance. According to agreement, the demon entered into the emperor's daughter, and Simeon exorcised it when he arrived at the Roman court. The emperor then took Simeon into his treasure-house, leaving him to choose his own reward. Simeon found there the vexatious decree, which he took away and tore into pieces (comp. "Tefillot R. Shim'on b. Yo?ai" in Jellinek, "B. H." iv. 117 et seq., where, instead of "Ben Temalion," "Asmodeus" occurs). This legend, the origin of which apparently is non-Jewish, has been the subject of discussion bymodern scholars. Israel Lévi (in "R. E. J." viii. 200 et seq.) thinks it is a variation of the legend, found in the "Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha" (ed. Tischendorf, pp. 246 et seq.), of the apostle Bartholomew exorcising a demon that had taken possession of the daughter of Polymnius, the King of India. Israel Lévi's opinion was approved by Joseph Halévy (in "R. E. J." x. 60 et seq.). Bacher (ib. xxxv. 285 et seq.) thinks there is another Christian legend which corresponds more closely to the Talmudic narrative, namely, that narrated by Simeon Metaphrastes in "Acta Sanctorum" (vol. ix., Oct. 22, 1896), according to which Abercius exorcised a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus Aurelius.

Simeon is stated to have said that whatever might be the number of persons deserving to enter heaven he and his son were certainly of that number, so that if there were only two, these were himself and his son (Suk. 45b; Sanh. 97b; comp. Shab. 33b). He is also credited with saying that, united with his son and Jotham, King of Judah, he would be able to free the world from judgment (Suk. l.c.; comp. Yer. Ber. ix. 13d and Gen. R. xxxv. 3 [where Simeon mentions Abraham and the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh, instead of his son and Jotham]). Thus, on account of his exceptional piety and continual study of the Law, Simeon was considered as one of those whose merit preserves the world, and therefore during his life the rainbow was never seen, that promise of God's forbearance not being needed (Yer. Ber. l.c.).

His Halakot.

Simeon's halakot are very numerous; they are met with in all the treatises of the Talmud except Berakot, ?allah, Ta'anit, Nedarim, Tamid, and Middot. He greatly valued the teaching of his master Akiba, and he is reported to have recommended his pupils to follow his own system of interpretation ("middot") because it was derived from that of Akiba (Gi?. 67a). But this itself shows that Simeon did not follow his teacher in every point; indeed, as is shown below, he often differed from Akiba, declaring his own interpretations to be the better (Sifre, Deut. 31; R. H. 18b). He was independent in his halakic decisions, and did not refrain from criticizing the tannaim of the preceding generations (comp. Tosef., Oh. iii. 8, xv. 11). He and Jose b. ?alafta were generally of the same opinion; but sometimes Simeon sided with Meïr (Kelim iii. 5; Me'i. 11a). Like the other pupils of Akiba, who, wishing to perpetuate the latter's teaching, systematized it in the foundation of the Mishnah (R. Meïr), Tosefta (R. Nehemiah), and Sifra (R. Judah), Simeon is credited with the authorship of the Sifre (Sanh. 86a) and of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Shim'on, the former work being a halakic midrash to Numbers and Deuteronomy, the latter a similar midrash to Exodus.

The particular characteristic of Simeon's teaching was that whether in a halakah or in a haggadic interpretation of a Biblical command, he endeavored to find the underlying reason therefor (B. M. 115a et al.). This often resulted in a material modification of the command in question. From many instances the following may be taken: In the prohibition against taking a widow's raiment in pledge (Deut.xxiv. 17) it was Judah b. Ila'i's opinion that no difference is to be made between a rich and a poor widow. But Simeon gives the reason for such a prohibition, which was that if such a pledge were taken it would be necessary to return it every evening (comp. Ex. xxii. 25-26), and going to the widow's home every morning and evening might compromise her reputation; consequently, he declares, the prohibition applies only in the case of a poor widow, since one who is rich would not need to have the garment returned in the evening (B. M. l.c.).

Simeon's name was widely identified with this halakic principle of interpretation, and his teacher Akiba approved of it; therefore his contemporaries often applied to him when they wished to know the reason for certain halakot (Tosef., Zeb. i. 8). Simeon also divided the oral law into numbered groups, of which fifteen are preserved in the Talmud. He especially favored the system of giving general rules, of which there are a great number (Bik. iii. 10; Zeb. 119b et al.). All this shows that he was systematic, and that he had the power of expressing himself clearly (Sheb. ii. 3; 'Er. 104b). He was dogmatic in his halakic decisions, but where there was a doubt as to which of two courses should be followed, and the Rabbis adopted a compromise, he admitted the legality of either course (Yeb. iii. 9). He differed from Akiba in that he did not think that particles like "et," "gam," and others contain in themselves indications of halakot (Men. 11b); but in many instances he showed that he was opposed to R. Ishmael's opinion that the Torah speaks as men do and that seemingly pleonastic words can never serve as the basis for deducing new laws (Sifre, Re'eh, 119; R. H. 8b; Zeb. 108b et al.).

Simeon is very prominent also in the Haggadah, and his utterances are numerous in both Talmuds. Many of his sayings bear on the study of the Torah, which, according to him, should be the main object of man's life. Notwithstanding the stress he laid on the importance of prayer, and particularly on the reading of the "Shema'," he declared that one must not, for the sake of either, interrupt the study of the Torah (Yer. ?ag. ii. 77a). "There are three crowns," he says, "the first being that of the Torah" (Ab. iv. 13); he completes his sentence with the words, "But the crown of a good name mounts above them all," showing that, in addition to studying the Law, one must execute the commands by which he can acquire a good name. The Torah, also, is one of the three good gifts which God gave to Israel and which can not be preserved without suffering (Mek., Yitro, Ba?odesh, 10; Sifre, Deut. 32; Ber. 5a). But recognizing the difficulty of occupying oneself with the study of the Torah and of providing a livelihood at the same time, Simeon said that the Torah was given only for those who ate the manna or the priestly meals (Mek., Beshalla?, Waye?i, 1, Wayassa', 2). He declared also that had he been on Mount Sinai when God delivered the Torah to Israel, he would have requested two mouths for man, one to be used exclusively as a means for repeating and thus learning the Torah. But then he added, "How great also would be the evil done by delators ["moserim") with two mouths!" (Yer. Shab. i. 3a, b; Yer. Ber. i. 3b).

His Ethical Views.

Among Simeon's many other utterances may be mentioned those with regard to repentance, and some of his ethical sayings. "So great is the power of repentance that a man who has been during his lifetime very wicked ["rasha' gamur"], if he repent toward the end, is considered a perfectly righteous man" (Tosef., ?id. i. 14; ?id. 40b; Cant. R. v. 16). He was particularly severe against haughtiness, which, he declared, is like idolatry (So?ah 4b), and against publicly shaming one's neighbor: "One should rather throw himself into a burning furnace than shame a neighbor in public" (Ber. 43b). He denounced the crimes of usury, deceitful dealing, and disturbing domestic peace (Yer. B. M. 10d; B. M. 58b; Lev. R. ix.). HIS ANIMOSITY TOWARD THE GENTILES GENERALLY AND TOWARD FEMININE SUPERSTITION IS EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING UTTERANCE: "THE BEST OF THE HEATHEN MERITS DEATH; THE BEST OF THE SERPENTS SHOULD HAVE ITS HEAD CRUSHED; AND THE MOST PIOUS OF WOMEN IS PRONE TO SORCERY" (Yer. ?id. iv. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; comp. Mek., Beshalla?, Waye?i, 1, and Tan., Wayera, 20). His hostility to the Romans, mentioned above, is expressed also in his maxims; thus, alluding probably to the Parthian war which broke out in the time of Antoninus Pius, he said: "If thou hast seen a Persian [Parthian] horse tied in Palestine, then hope for the arrival of the Messiah" (Cant. R. viii. 10; Lam. R. i. 13).

R. Simeon combined with his rationalism in halakah a strange mysticism in his haggadic teachings, as well as in his practise. HE SPOKE OF A MAGIC SWORD, ON WHICH THE NAME WAS INSCRIBED, BEING GIVEN BY GOD TO MOSES ON SINAI (Midr. Teh. to Ps. xc. 2; comp. ib. to Ps. xxxvi. 8; Gen. R. xxxv.); and he ascribed all kinds of miraculous powers to Moses (Me'i. 17b; Sanh. 97b). After his death he appeared to the saints in their visions (B. M. 84b; Ket. 77b; Sanh. 98a). THUS HIS NAME BECAME CONNECTED WITH MYSTIC LORE, AND HE BECAME A CHIEF AUTHORITY FOR THE CABALISTS; for this reason THE ZOHAR FIRST APPEARED UNDER THE NAME OF MIDRASH DE-RABBI SHIM'ON BEN YOCHAI (see Zohar). There exist, besides, two apocryphal midrashim ascribed to this tanna (published by Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 78 et seq., iv. 117 et seq.). The first is entitled "Nistarot de-R. Shim'on b. Yo?ai"; the second, "Tefillat R. Shim'on b. Yo?ai"; both of them bear on the Messianic time, but the second is more complete. The main point of these midrashim is that while Simeon was hidden in the cavern, he fasted forty days and prayed to God to rescue Israel from such persecutions. THEN METATRON REVEALED TO HIM THE FUTURE, announcing the various Mohammedan rulers, the last one of whom would perish at the hands of the Messiah. As in similar Messianic apocrypha, the chief characters are Armilus and the three Messiahs—Messiah b. Joseph, Messiah b. Ephraim, and Messiah b. David.

As to the festival called "Hillula de-Rabbi Shim'on ben Yo?ai," which is celebrated on Simeon's supposed tomb at Meron, on the 18th of Iyyar, see 'Omer, Lag be-; Pilgrimage.

Bibliography: Bacher, Ag. Tan. ii. 70 et seq.;
Brüll, Mebo ha-Mishnah, pp. 185 et seq.;
Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, pp. 168 et seq.;
Grätz, Gesch. 3d ed., iv. 180 et seq., note 20;
Grünhut, in Magyar Zsidó Szemle, xvii. 63;
Heilprin, Sederha-Dorot, ii.;
Joël, in Monatsschrift, v. 365 et seq., 401 et seq.;
Kaminka, in Ha-Meli?, xxix., Nos. 75, 77;
Paucher, in Ha-Asif, iv. 120;
Weiss, Dor, ii. 157 et seq.;
Moses Konitz, Ben Jo?ai, Budapest, 1815;
Louis Lewin, Rabbi Simon ben Jochai, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1893.K. M. Sel.

THE SAYINGS OF THE ORIGINAL SCHIMON BAR YOHAI (SIMON PETER)

'The days are few, and the creditor is urgent; the Herald crieth aloud daily, and the reapers of the land are few; and those who are about the end of the vineyard attend not, AND HAVE NOT KNOWN WHERE MAY BE THE LAWFUL PLACE.'" .

"Rabbi Schimeon spake unto his companions, and said, 'HOW LONG SHALL WE ABIDE IN THE CONDITION OF ONE COLUMN BY ITSELF'? When it is written, Psalm 119:126: "It is time for Thee, Lord, to lay Thine Hand, for they have destroyed Thy law."'

Rabbi Schimeon (Simon) sat down and wept; then he said, 'WOE! IF I SHOULD REVEAL IT! WOE IF I SHOULD REVEAL IT NOT!' His companions who were with him were silent.

Rabbi Abba arose and said unto him: 'With the favour of the Lord, also it is written, (Ps.24:14), "The Arcanum of Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is with them that fear him." And well do these companions fear the Holy and Blessed One; and now they have entered into the assembly of the tabernacle of his house, some of them have only entered, and some of them have departed also.' Moreover it is said the companions who were with Rabbi Schimeon were numbered and they were found to consist of Rabbi Eleazar, his son; and Rabbi Abba, and Rabbi Yahuda, and Rabbi Yosi the son of Jacob, and Rabbi Isaac, and Rabbi Chisqiah the son of Rav, and Rabbi Chia, and Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Yisa. (Ten in all).

They gave their hands unto Rabbi Schimeon, and raised their fingers on high, and entered into a field under the trees (as Druids do) and sat down...

Rabbi Schimeon began, and said, 'Time for Thee, O Tetragrammaton, to lay Thine Hand.' (see Chapter 6). Why is it time for the Tetragrammaton to lay His hand? Because they have perverted Thy law. What is this, 'they have perverted Thy law?' The Higher law, which is itself made void, if it is not carried out according to His commands. Wherefore is this? (Or, as others read: Wherefore is this name Tetragrammaton here employed?) This hath been said concerning the Ancient of Days. For it is written, Deut.33:29: 'Blessed art thou O Israel: who is like unto thee?' Also it is written, Exodus 15:11: Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Tetragrammaton?'

He called Rabbi Eleazar his son, and commanded him to sit down before him, and Rabbi Abba on the other side, and said, 'We are the type of all things (that is, we represent the Three Columns of the Sephiroth); thus far are the columns established.' (Compare Galatians 2:9).

They kept silence, and they heard a voice; and their knees knocked one against the other with fear. What was this voice? The voice of the Higher Assembly, which has assembled above. (For out of Paradise came the souls of the just thither, that they might hearken, together with the Shekinah of the Divine Presence).

Rabbi Schimeon rejoiced, and said, 'O Tetragrammaton! I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid!' (Hab.3:1). He hath said: It is rightly done, seeing that fear hath followed; but for us the matter dependeth upon love. (see 1 John 4:7-21). Like as it is written, Deut 6:5: 'AND THOU SHALT DELIGHT IN TETRAGRAMMATON THY GOD,' also it is written, Malachi 1:2, 'I have loved you.'

Rabbi Schimeon said further: 'HE WHO WALKETH, GOING UP AND DOWN (from one house to another) REVEALETH THE SECRET, BUT THE FAITHFUL IN SPIRIT CONCEALETH THE WORD.' (Prov.11:13). But concerning him who is firm in spirit it is written: 'But the faithful in spirit concealeth the word.' (This phrase) 'faithful in spirit' denoteth firmness of spirit, like it is said, Isaiah 22:23: 'AND I WILL FASTEN HIM AS A NAIL IN A SURE PLACE.' Matter dependeth upon spirit... FOR NEITHER DOTH THE WORLD REMAIN FIRM, EXCEPT THROUGH SECRECY. AND IF IN WORLDLY AFFAIRS THERE BE SO GREAT A NEED FOR SECRESY, HOW MUCH MORE IN THE THINGS OF THE MOST SECRET OF SECRETS, AND IN THE MEDIATATION OF THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, WHICH MATTERS ARE NOT EVEN REVEALED TO THE HIGHEST OF ANGELS

Rabbi Schimeon said, moreover: 'I will not say unto the heavens, that they may hear; I will not declare it unto the earth, that it may hear; for certainly we are (the symbols) of the pillars of the Universe.'

It is said in the Arcanum of Arcana, that when Rabbi Schimeon opened his mouth, the whole place was shaken, and his companions were also shaken. (See Hebrews 12:25-29). The Kabbalah Unveiled, The Greater Holy Assembly, by S.L. MacGregor Mathers, pp.109-111.

__________

"Then we have the Talmud, with its numerous anecdotes about 'Acher' as the rabbis called Paul...These sources are of inestimable value to the historian. These sources help us form an opinion of the man.

Paul is not a proper name. It signifies 'the little one.' The author of Acts states that his name was Saul--but it appears that he (Paul) knew no more about it than we do--and changed the P of Paul into an S, to make the Hebrew name Saul. So the author of the 'we' portion of Acts always call him Paul. Passing under an assumed name the rabbis called him Acher, 'another,' i.e., one who passes under another or assumed name.

They maintain that his name was Elisha ben Abuyah. But this name must be fictitious, because it is a direct and express reference to Paul's theology. It signifies the 'saving deity, son of the Father God.' And Paul was the author of the 'Son of God' doctrine. The fact is, he is known to the world under his assumed name only." The Rise of Christianity, by Isaac M. Wise, p.72.


ELISHA BEN ABUYAH

By : Louis Ginzberg

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Youth and Activity.
The Four Who Entered Paradise.
The Talmudic Explanation.
Elisha an "Epicurean"

Born in Jerusalem before 70; flourished in Palestine at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. At one time the Rabbis were proud to recognize him as of their number; but later their opposition to him grew so intense that they even refrained from pronouncing his name, and referred to him in terms used to designate some vile object ("dabar a?er," lit. "another thing"). For this reason it is almost impossible to derive from rabbinical sources a clear picture of his personality, and modern historians have differed greatly in their estimate of him. According to Grätz, he was a Karpotian Gnostic; according to Siegfried, a follower of Philo; according to Dubsch, a Christian; according to Smolenskin and Weiss, a victim of the inquisitor Akiba.

Youth and Activity.

Of Elisha's youth and of his activity as a teacher of the Law very little is known. He was the son of an esteemed and rich citizen of Jerusalem, and was trained for the career of a scholar. His praise of this method of education is the only saying that the Mishnah has found worth perpetuating. According to Abot iv. 25, his favorite saying was, "Learning in youth is like writing upon new paper, but learning in old age is like writing upon paper which has already been used." Elisha was a student of Greek; as the Talmud expresses it, "Aher's tongue was never tired of singing Greek songs" (Yer. Meg. i. 9), which, according to some, caused his apostasy (?ag. 16b, below). Bacher has very properly remarked that the similes which Elisha is reported to have used (Ab. R. N. xxiv.) show that he was a man of the world, acquainted with wine, horses, and architecture. He must have acquired a reputation as an authority in questions of religious practise, since one of his halakic decisions is recorded—the only one in his name, though there may be others under the names of different teachers. The Babylonian Talmud asserts that Elisha, while a teacher in the bet ha-midrash, kept forbidden books ("sifre minim") hidden in his clothes. This statement is not found in the Jerusalem Talmud, and if at all historical, may possibly mean that he also studied the writings of the Sadducees, who, owing to changes made by the censors, are sometimes called "minim."

The oldest and most striking reference to the views of Elisha is found in the following baraita (?ag. 14b; Yer. ii. 1):

"Four [sages] entered paradise—Ben 'Azzai, Ben Zoma, A?er, and Akiba. Ben 'Azzai looked and died; Ben Zoma went mad; A?er destroyed the plants; Akiba alone came out unhurt."

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth); such a one caught up to the Third heaven.

And I knew such a man...HOW HE WAS CAUGHT UP INTO PARADISE, AND HEARD UNSPEAKABLE WORDS, WHICH IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO UTTER...(2 Corinthians 12:1-8).

The Four Who Entered Paradise.

There can be no doubt that the journey of the "four" to paradise, like the ascension of Enoch (in the pre-Christian books of Enoch) and of so many other pious men, is to be taken literally and not allegorically. This conception of the baraita is supported by the use of the phrase ("entered paradise"), since ("entered the Garden of Eden" = paradise) was a common expression (Derek Ere? Zu?a i.; Ab. R. N. xxv.). It means that Elisha, like Paul, in a moment of ecstasy beheld the interior of heaven—in the former's case, however, with the effect that he destroyed the plants of the heavenly garden.

The Talmud gives two different interpretations of this last phrase. The Babylonian Talmud says:

"What is the meaning of 'A?er destroyed the plants'? Scripture refers to him (Eccl. v. 5 [A. V. 6]) when it says: 'Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin.' What does this signify? In heaven Aher saw Metatron seated while he wrote down the merits of Israel. Whereupon Aher said: 'We have been taught to believe that no one sits in heaven, . . . or are there perhaps two supreme powers?' Then a heavenly voice was heard: 'Turn, O backsliding children (Jer. iii. 14), with the exception of Aher.'"

The Talmudic Explanation.

The dualism with which the Talmud charges him has led some scholars to see here Persian, Gnostic, or even Philonian dualism. They forget that the reference here to Metatron—a specifically Babylonian idea, which would probably be unknown to Palestinian rabbis even five hundred years after Elisha—robs the passage of all historical worth. The story is of late origin, as is seen from the introductory words, which stand in no connection with the context, as they do in the parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud. This latter makes no mention of Elisha's dualism; but it relates that in the critical period following the rebellion of Bar Kokba, Elisha visited the schools and attempted to entice the students from the study of the Torah, in order to direct their energies to some more practical occupation; and it is to him, therefore, that the verse "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin "(Eccl. v. 5) is to be applied. In connection with this the Biblical quotation is quiteintelligible, as according to another haggadah (Shab. 34b; Eccl. R. v. 5) "flesh" here means children—spiritual children, pupils—whom Elisha killed with his mouth by luring them from the study of the Torah....

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are two covenants; the one from mount Sinai (not the Higher Sinai, but the several places believed to be Sinai in the East), which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.

For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem (that city there in the East) which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But JERUSALEM WHICH IS ABOVE IS FREE, WHICH IS THE MOTHER OF US ALL...(Galatians 4:21-26).

The Babylonia amoraim must have known this story, from which they took the concluding part and attached it to another legend. The Jerusalem Talmud is also the authority for the statement that Elisha played the part of an informer during the Hadrianic persecutions, when the Jews were ordered to violate the laws of the Torah. As evidence of this it is related that when the Jews were ordered to do work on the Sabbath, they tried to perform it in a way which could be considered as not profaning the Sabbath. But Elisha betrayed the Pharisees to the Roman authorities. Thus it is probable that the antipathy of Elisha was not directed against Judaism in general, but only against Pharisaism. The reason given for his apostasy is also characteristic. He saw how one man had lost his life while fulfilling a law for the observance of which the Torah promised a long life (Deut. xxii. 7), whereas another man who broke the same law was not hurt in the least. This practical demonstration, as well as the frightful sufferings of the martyrs during the Hadrianic persecutions, strengthened his conviction that there was no reward for virtue in this life or the next. These statements of the Jerusalem Talmud are no doubt based on reliable tradition, as they are also confirmed by the Babylonian Talmud (?id. 39b). Bearing in mind what is said about Elisha, there can be little doubt that he was a Sadducee.

Elisha an "Epicurean"

The harsh treatment he received from the Pharisees WAS DUE TO HIS HAVING DESERTED THEIR RANKS AT SUCH A CRITICAL TIME. Quite in harmony with this supposition are the other sins laid to his charge; namely, that he rode in an ostentatious manner through the streets of Jerusalem on a Day of Atonement which fell upon a Sabbath, and that he was bold enough to overstep the "te?um" (the limits of the Sabbath-day journey). Both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds agree here, and cite this as proof that Elisha turned from Pharisaism to heresy. It was just such non-observance of customs that excited the anger of Akiba (So?ah 27b). The mention of the "Holy of Holies" in this passage is not an anachronism, as Grätz thinks. For while it is true that Eliezer and Joshua were present as the geonim par excellence at Elisha's circumcision—which must, therefore, have occurred after the death of Johanan ben Zakkai (80 C.E.)—it is also true that the "Holy of Holies" is likewise mentioned in connection with Rabbi Akiba (Mak., end); indeed, the use of this expression is due to the fact that the Rabbis held holiness to be inherent in the place, not in the building (Yeb. 6b).

The same passage from the Jerusalem Talmud refers to Elisha as being alive when his pupil R. Meïr had become a renowned teacher. According to the assumption made above, he must have reached his seventieth year at that time. If Elisha were a Sadducee, the friendship constantly shown him by R. Meïr could be understood. This friendship would have been impossible had Elisha been an apostate or a man of loose morals, as has been asserted. Sadducees and Pharisees, however, lived in friendly intercourse with one another (for example, Rabban Gamaliel with Sadducees; 'Er. 77b). For legends concerning Elisha see Johanan ben Nappa?a; Meïr; compare also Gnosticism.

Bibliography: Grätz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum, pp. 56-71;
P. Smolenski, Sämmtliche Werke, ii. 267-278;
A. Jellinek, Elischa b. Abuja, Leipsic, 1847;
I. H. Weiss, Dor, ii. 140-143;
M. Dubsch, in He-?alu?, v. 66-72;
Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, pp. 285-287;
Bacher, Ag. Tan. i. 432-436;
Hoffmann, Toledot Elischa b. Abuja, Vienna, 1880;
S. Rubin, Yalk., Shelomoh, pp. 17-28, Cracow, 1896;
M. Friedländer, Vorchristlich. Jüd. Gnosticismus, 1898, pp. 100 et seq.;
Bäck, Elischa b. Abuja-Acher, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1891. Compare also M. Letteris' Hebrew drama Ben Abuja, an adaptation of Goethe's Faust, Vienna, 1865;
B. Kaplan, in Open Court, Aug., 1902.L. G.


ELIEZER (LIEZER) BEN HYRCANUS

By : Solomon Schechter S. Mendelsohn

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Eliezer's Conservatism.
Relations with Christianity.
His Death.

One of the most prominent tannaim of the first and second centuries; disciple of R. Johanan ben Zakkai (Ab. ii. 8; Ab. R. N. vi. 3, xiv. 5) and colleague of Gamaliel II., whose sister he married (see Imma Shalom), and of Joshua b. Hananiah (Ab. l.c.; Ab. R. N. l.c.; B. B. 10b). His earlier years are wrapped in myths; but from these latter it may be inferred that he was somewhat advanced in life when a desire for learning first seized him, and impelled him, contrary to the wishes of his father, to desert his regular occupation and to repair to Jerusalem to devote himself to the study of the Torah. Here he entered Johanan's academy and for years studied diligently, notwithstanding the fact that he had to cope with great privations. It is said that sometimes many days elapsed during which he did not have a single meal. Johanan, recognizing Eliezer's receptive and retentive mind, styled him "a cemented cistern that loses not a drop" (Ab. l.c.). These endowments were so pronounced in him that in later years he could declare, "I have never taught anything which I had not learned from my masters" (Suk. 28a).

His father in the meantime determined to disinherit him, and with that purpose in view went to Jerusalem, there to declare his will before Johanan ben Zakkai. The great teacher, having heard of Hyrcanus' arrival and of the object of his visit, instructed the usher to reserve for the expected visitor a seat among those to be occupied by the élite of the city, and appointed Eliezer lecturer for that day. At first the latter hesitated to venture on Johanan's place, but, pressed by the master and encouraged by his friends, delivered a discourse, gradually displaying wonderful knowledge. Hyrcanus having recognized in the lecturer his truant son, and hearing the encomiums which Johanan showered on him, now desired to transfer all his earthly possessions to Eliezer; but the scholar, overjoyed at the reconciliation, declined to take advantage of his brothers, and requested to be allowed to have only his proportionate share (Ab. R. N. vi. 3; Pir?e R. El. i. et seq.). He continued his attendance at Johanan's college until near the close of the siege of Jerusalem, when he and Joshua assisted in smuggling their master out of the city and into the Roman camp.

Subsequently Eliezer proceeded to Jabneh (Ab.R. N. iv. 5; Gi?. 56), where he later became a member of the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (Ab. R. N. xiv. 6; Sanh. 17b), though he had established, and for many years afterward conducted, his own academy at Lydda (Sanh. 36b). His fame as a great scholar had in the meantime spread, R. Johanan himself declaring that Eliezer was unequaled as an expositor of traditional law (Ab. R. N. vi. 3); and many promising students, among them Akiba (ib.; Yer. Pes. vi. 33b), attached themselves to his school.

Eliezer became known as "Eliezer ha-Gadol" ("the Great"; Tosef., 'Orlah, 8; Ber. 6a, 32a; So?ah 13b, 48b, 49a; generally, however, he is styled simply "R. Eliezer"), and with reference to his legal acumen and judicial impartiality, the Scriptural saying (Deut. xvi. 20), "That which is altogether just [lit. "Justice, justice"] shalt thou follow," was thus explained: "Seek a reliable court: go after R. Eliezer to Lydda, or after Johanan ben Zakkai to Beror ?el," etc. (Sanh. 32b). Once he accompanied Gamaliel and Joshua on an embassy to Rome (Yer. Sanh. vii. 25d; Deut. R. ii. 24).

Eliezer's Conservatism.

Rabbi Eliezer was very severe and somewhat domineering with his pupils and colleagues (see Sifra, Shemini, i. 33; 'Er. 68a; ?ag. 3b; Meg. 25b), a characteristic which led occasionally to unpleasant encounters. The main feature of his teaching was a strict devotion to tradition: he objected to allowing the Midrash or the paraphrastic interpretation to pass as authority for religious practise. In this respect he sympathized with the conservative school of Shammai, which was also opposed to giving too much scope to the interpretation. Hence the assertion that he was a Shammaite, though he was a disciple of R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who was one of Hillel's most prominent pupils. This brought Eliezer into conflict with his colleagues and contemporaries, who realized that such conservatism must be fatal to a proper development of the oral law. It was also felt that the new circumstances, such as the destruction of the Temple and the disappearance of the national independence, required a strong religious central authority, to which individual opinion must yield.

At last the rupture came. The Sanhedrin deliberated on the susceptibility to Levitical uncleanness of an 'aknai-oven (an oven consisting of tiles separated from one another by sand, but externally plastered over with cement). The majority decided that such an oven was capable of becoming unclean, but Eliezer dissented. As he thus acted in direct opposition to the decision of the majority, it was deemed necessary to make an example of him, AND HE WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. Still, even under these circumstances great respect was manifested toward him, and the sentence was communicated to him in a very considerate manner. Akiba, dressed in mourning, appeared before him and, seated at some distance from him, respectfully addressed him with "My master, it appears to me that thy colleagues keep aloof from thee." Eliezer readily took in the situation and submitted to the sentence (B. M. 59b; Yer. M. ?. iii. 81a et seq.). Thenceforth Eliezer lived in retirement, removed from the center of Jewish learning; though occasionally some of his disciples visited him and informed him of the transactions of the Sanhedrin (Yad. iv. 3).

Relations with Christianity.

During the persecutions of the Jewish Christians in Palestine, ELIEZER WAS CHARTGED WITH BEING A MEMBER OF THAT SECT, and was summoned before the penal tribunal. Being asked by the governor, "How can a great man like thee engage in such idle things?" he simply replied, "The judge is right." The judge, understanding thereby Eliezer's denial of all connection with Christianity, released him, while Rabbi Eliezer understood by "judge" God, justifying the judgment of God which had brought this trial upon him. That he should be suspected of apostasy grieved him sorely; and though some of his pupils tried to comfort him, he remained for some time inconsolable. At last he remembered that once, while at Sepphoris, he had met a sectary who communicated to him a singular halakah in the name of Jesus; that he had approved of the halakah and had really enjoyed hearing it, and, he added, "Thereby I transgressed the injunction (Prov. v. 8), 'Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house,' which the Rabbis apply to sectarianism as well as to heresy" ('Ab. Zarah 16b; Eccl. R. i. 8). The suspicion of apostasy and the summons before the dreaded tribunal came, therefore, as just punishment. This event in his life may have suggested to him the ethical rule, "Keep away from what is indecent and from that which appears to be indecent" (Tosef., ?ul. ii. 24). It is suggested that his sayings, "Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy" (Sotah iii. 4); "Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman" (ib.); and "A woman's wisdom is limited to the handling of the distaff" (Yoma 66b), also date from that time, he having noticed that women were easily swayed in matters of faith.

Separated from his colleagues and excluded from the deliberations of the Sanhedrin, Eliezer passed his last years of life unnoticed and in comparative solitude. It is probably from this melancholy period that his aphorism dates: "Let the honor of thy colleague [variant, "pupils"] be as dear to thee as thine own, and be not easily moved to anger. Repent one day before thy death. Warm thyself by the fire of the wise men, but be cautious of their burning coals [= "slight them not"], that thou be not burned; for their bite is the bite of a jackal, their sting is that of a scorpion, their hissing is that of a snake, and all their words are fiery coals" (Ab. ii. 10; Ab. R. N. xv. 1). When asked how one can determine the one day before his death, he answered: "So much the more must one repent daily, lest he die to-morrow; and it follows that he must spend all his days in piety" (Ab. R. N. l.c. 4; Shab. 153a).

His Death.

When his former colleagues heard of his approaching dissolution, the most prominent of them hastened to his bedside at Cæsarea. When they appeared before him he began to complain about his long isolation. They tried to mollify him by professing great and unabated respect for him, and by averring that it was only the lack of opportunity that had kept them away. He felt that they might have profited by his teaching. Thereupon they besought him to communicate to them traditions concerning certain moot points, particularly touching Levitical purity and impurity. He consented, and answered question after question until all breath left him. The last word he uttered was "?ahor" ("pure"), and this the sages considered as an auspicious omen of his purity; whereupon they all rent their garments in token of mourning, and R. Joshua revoked the sentence of excommunication.

Eliezer died on a Friday, and after the following Sabbath his remains were solemnly conveyed to Lydda, where he had formerly conducted his academy, and there he was buried. Many and earnest were the eulogies pronounced over his bier. R. Joshua is said to have kissed the stone on which Eliezer used to sit while instructing his pupils, and to have remarked, "This stone represents Sinai [whence the Law was revealed]; and he who sat on it represented the Ark of the Covenant" (Cant. R. i. 3). R. Akiba applied to Eliezer the terms which Elisha had applied to Elijah (II Kings ii. 12), and which Joash subsequently applied to Elisha himself (ib. xiii. 14), "O MY FATHER, MY FATHER, THE CHARIOT OF ISRAEL, AND THE HORSEMEN THEREOF" (Ab. R. N. xxv. 3).

Though excommunicated, Eliezer is quoted in the Mishnah, the Baraita, and the Talmudim more frequently than any one of his colleagues. He is also made the putative author of Pir?e De-R. Eliezer or Baraita of R. Eliezer, though internal evidence conclusively proves the late origin of the work.

Bibliography: Bacher, Ag. Tan. i. 100-160;
Brüll, Mebo ha-Mishnah, i. 75-82;
Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, pp. 75-83;
Grätz, Gesch. 2d ed., iv. 43 et seq.;
Hamburger, R. B. T. ii. 162-168;
Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii., s.v.;
Oppenheim, Bet Talmud, iv. 311, 332, 360;
Weiss, Dor, ii. 81 et seq.;
Wiesner, Gibe'at Yerushalayim, pp. 61 et seq.;
Zacuto, Yu?asin, ed. Filipowski, pp. 50a et seq.;
G. Deutsch, The Theory of Oral Tradition, pp. 30, 34, Cincinnati, 1896.S. S. S. M.